Neurocognitive profiles of patients with the first episode of psychosis and schizophrenia do not differ qualitatively: A nested cross-sectional study

7Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The aim of study was to analyze neurocognitive profiles in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and patients with schizophrenia (SCH), and their correlations with other clinical features. Subjects and methods: We performed a multicentric cross sectional study including 100 FEP and 100 SCH recruited from three Croatian hospitals during 2015-2017. Assessment included a set of neurocognitive tests, psychiatric scales and self-reporting questionnaires. The main analysis was done by multigroup latent profile analysis. Results: Multigroup latent profile analysis resulted in three structurally equivalent neurocognitive profiles ("Best", "Medium", "Worst"), with differences in the severity of neurocognitive deficits measured with successfulness in solving domain specific tasks. The "Best" profile was statistically significantly more prevalent in FEP and "Worst" profile in the SCH. Negative symptom score was the highest in patients with the "Worst" profile and the lowest among those with the "Best" profiles. Conclusions: Differences in neurocognitive profiles between FEP and SCH appear to be quantitative rather than qualitative nature, possibly reflecting a specific trait of illness that may progress over time. Defining neurocognitive profiles from the first episode of psychosis could help in tailoring individualized treatment options with focus on neurocognitive and negative symptoms and possible influence on patients' overall clinical outcome.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kuharic, D. B., Makaric, P., Kekin, I., Bajic, Z., Zivkovic, M., Savic, A., … Kuzman, M. R. (2019). Neurocognitive profiles of patients with the first episode of psychosis and schizophrenia do not differ qualitatively: A nested cross-sectional study. Psychiatria Danubina, 31(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2019.43

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free